wicket-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matej Knopp <matej.kn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: taking the I out of Interface
Date Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:15:46 GMT
It's not just the models. There are plenty of internal interfaces in
wicket that have the I prefix. And it's not even consistent. Some
interfaces have it some don't. So every time I'm looking for something
not only do I have to know if it is an interface but I also have to
know whether it starts with an I, which not all do.

As for the naming, IModel/Model is what we have now. Apart from not
being very java like the name Model doesn't say much about it's
nature.
Model/ModelImpl is probably even worse. Everytime I see class that
ends with Impl I have to ask myself whether there really was a point
in extracting the interface.

I think Model (interface) / ObjectModel is the best alternative.
ObjectModel says enough about the implementation - that it holds a
single object. But I don't think this thread is about actual naming.
It's more about pros & cons of the prefix.

-Matej

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Ryan Gravener <ryan@ryangravener.com> wrote:
> It's just my preference.  IModel / Model vs. Model / ObjectModel or
> Model / ModelImpl
>
> Ryan Gravener
> http://bit.ly/no_word_docs
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Easier? How's that? I find it really annoying that when I'm looking
>> for something and I have to know upfront whether it is an interface or
>> a class. And when reading the code, what difference does it really
>> make if it is interface or a class? By that logic we should start
>> using hungarian notation. You could easily see what type the class
>> member is...
>>
>> -Matej
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Ryan Gravener <ryan@ryangravener.com> wrote:
>>> -1  It's nice to know what is an interface by seeing the I.  Also for
>>> IDEs its easier to find the class I'm looking for.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ryan Gravener
>>> http://bit.ly/no_word_docs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Altuğ B. Altıntaş <altuga@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>> what about upgrading projects from 1.4 to 1.5  ?
>>>>> It breaks compatibility
>>>> There will be other breaks. This is not a minor update. Breaks
>>>> compatibility is hardly a valid argument here. We will break
>>>> compatibility one way or another. But we will also provide migration
>>>> path. Replacing Model with ObjectModel and then IModel with Model in
>>>> code (just an made up example) is hardly a task that would prevent
>>>> anyone from migrating application to 1.5.
>>>>
>>>> -Matej
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -1
>>>>>
>>>>> Not: i am not a *committer* but loves wicket :)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009/10/3 Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.5 is going to be neither source nor binary compatible. And I
>>>>>> wouldn't say that consistency and conventions is not a reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Matej
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, tetsuo <ronald.tetsuo@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> > -1
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> +1
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynberg@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>  is it perhaps time to take the I out of our interface
names? wicket
>>>>>> >>> has been the only project i have ever worked on/used
that follows this
>>>>>> >>> convention, is it time for a change?
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> this is not meant as a flamewar about which convention
is teh
>>>>>> >>> aw3s0m3st, simply a discussion of whether or not we
should switch.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> -igor
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Altuğ.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message